Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Certified Mail
Return Receipt
Status: Delivered
Your item was delivered at 10:11 am on August 31, 2010 in OCALA, FL
34475.
Service(s): Enter Label/Receipt Number.
Detailed Results:
Delivered, August 31, 2010, 10:11 am, OCALA, FL 34475
Acceptance, August 30, 2010, 2:51 pm, OCALA, FL 34481
Processed through Sort Facility, August 30, 2010, 2:51 pm, OCALA, FL 34477
Track & Confirm by email
Get current event information or updates for your item sent to you or others by email.
Site Map Customer Service Forms Gov't Services Careers Privacy Policy Terms of Use Business Customer Gateway
Copyright 2010 USPS. All Rights Reserved. No FEAR Act EEO Data FOIA
Page 1 of 1 USPS - Track & Confirm
8/31/2010 http://trkcnfrm1.smi.usps.com/PTSInternetWeb/InterLabelInquiry.do
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
No. 11-2811
TERRANCE PRUDE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAVID A. CLARKE, JR., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 2:10-cv-00167-JPSJ.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.
SUBMITTED MARCH 7, 2012DECIDED MARCH 27, 2012
Before POSNER, WOOD, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff in this prisoners
civil rights suit brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 complains
that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment
by personnel of the Milwaukee County Jail. (He has a
second, less substantial claim that we discuss at the end
of the opinion.) He appeals from the grant of summary
judgment to the four defendants, who are the Sheriff
3
2 No. 11-2811
of Milwaukee County, two County Inspectors who work
at the jail, and a guard.
The plaintiff is serving time in a Wisconsin state
prison, but was transferred to the county jail on several
occasions to enable him to attend court proceedings
relating to a postconviction petition that he had filed.
On the second and third stays, which lasted a week and
10 days respectively, the jail fed him only nutriloaf,
pursuant to a new policy the jail had adopted of
making nutriloaf the exclusive diet of prisoners who
had been in segregation in prison at the time of their
transfer to the jail, even if their behavior in the jail was
exemplary. Nutriloaf (also spelled nutraloaf) is a bad-
tasting food given to prisoners as a form of punishment
(it is colloquially known as prison loaf or disciplinary
loaf). See, e.g., Jeff Ruby, Dining Critic Tries Nutra-
loaf, the Prison Food for Misbehaving Inmates, Chicago
Magazine, Sept. 2010, www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-
Magazine/September-2010/Dining-Critic-Tries-Nutraloaf-
the-Prison-Food-for-Misbehaving-Inmates; Arin Green-
wood, Taste-Testing Nutraloaf: The Prison Loaf
That Just Might Be Unconstitutionally Bad, Slate,
June 24, 2008, www.slate.com/articles/news_and_
politics/jurisprudence/2008/06/tastetesting_nutraloaf.html;
Matthew Purdy, Our Towns: Whats Worse Than
Solitary Confinement? Just Taste This, N.Y. Times, Aug. 4,
2002, www.nytimes.com/2002/08/04/nyregion/our-towns-
what -s-worse-than-soli t ary-confi nement -j ust -t ast e-
this.html (all visited March 15, 2012).
No. 11-2811 3
On his third stay, after two days on the nutriloaf diet,
the plaintiff began vomiting his meals and experiencing
stomach pains and constipation. (He had vomited
during the second stay as well.) He stopped eating
nutriloaf and subsisted for the eight remaining days of
his stay on bread and water (its unclear how he ob-
tained the bread). He had weighed 168 pounds before his
second and third stays at the jail, had lost either 5 or 6
pounds during the second stay, had not regained them,
and by the end of the third stay was down to 154 pounds:
he had lost 8.3 percent of his weight as a result of the
two stays (and he had not been overweight at 168).
A guard sent him to the infirmary after one of the
vomiting incidents during his third stay, and the nurses
there gave him antacids and a stool softener and one
of them told him his weight loss was alarming. Upon
his return to state prison he continued experiencing
painful defecation and bloody stools, and he was diag-
nosed with an anal fissure that the defendants have
not denied had developed while he was in the county jail.
The defendants response to his suit has been contuma-
cious, and we are surprised that the district judge did not
impose sanctions. The defendants ignored the plain-
tiffs discovery demands, ignored the judges order that
they comply with those demands, and continued their
defiance even after the judge threatened to impose sanc-
tions. But the judge failed to carry through on his
threat, so the threat proved empty.
The only evidence the defendants submitted in
support of their motion for summary judgment was a
4 No. 11-2811
preposterous affidavit from a sheriffs officer who is
also an assistant chief of a suburban Wisconsin fire de-
partment. The affidavit states only, so far as bears on
the appeal, that Nutraloaf has been determined to be a
nutritious substance for regular meals. The defendants
made no effort to qualify him as an expert witness. As
a lay witness, he was not authorized to offer hearsay
evidence (has been determined to be . . . nutritious).
No evidence was presented concerning the recipe for
or ingredients of the nutriloaf that was served at the
county jail during the plaintiffs sojourns there. Nutriloaf
isnt a proprietary food like Hostess Twinkies but,
like meatloaf or beef stew, a term for a composite
food the recipe of which can vary from institution to
institution, or even from day to day within an institu-
tion; nutriloaf could meet requirements for calories
and protein one day yet be poisonous the next if,
for example, made from leftovers that had spoiled.
The recipe was among the items of information that the
plaintiff sought in discovery and that the defendants
refused to produce.
Even an affidavit from an expert stating after a
detailed chemical analysis that nutriloaf meets all
dietary requirements would be worthless unless the
expert knew and stated that nutriloaf invariably was
made the same way in the institution. The assistant fire
chiefs affidavit says no such thingand he was not an
expert.
In addition to stonewalling the plaintiff and the
district judge, the defendants failed to file a brief in this
No. 11-2811 5
court and failed to respond to our order to show cause
why they hadnt filed a brief. They seem to think that
the federal courts have no jurisdiction over a county jail.
Deliberate withholding of nutritious food or substitu-
tion of tainted or otherwise sickening food, with the
effect of causing substantial weight loss, vomiting,
stomach pains, and maybe an anal fissure (which is no
fun at all, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_fissure
(visited March 15, 2012)), or other severe hardship, would
violate the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Hutto v. Finney,
437 U.S. 678, 687 (1978); Atkins v. City of Chicago, 631
F.3d 823, 830 (7th Cir. 2011); Sanville v. McCaughtry,
266 F.3d 724, 734 (7th Cir. 2001); Simmons v. Cook, 154
F.3d 805, 808 (8th Cir. 1998). Not that all nutriloaf is
unhealthful, though all is reputed to have an unpleasant
taste. But we do not know the recipe for the nutriloaf
that was served the plaintiff, or whether the ingredients
were tainted or otherwise unhealthful, because of the
defendants failure to comply with the plaintiffs dis-
covery demands. The defendants decided to defy rather
than to defend. The uncontradicted evidence is that
other prisoners in the jail also vomited after eating the
nutriloaf, and this suggests that it was indeed inedible.
The only possible justification for the district courts
rejection of the plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim, at
this early stage of the litigation, is that he may not
have sued the right defendants, since he can prevail
against a defendant only by proving that the defendant
was deliberately indifferent to his health. The guard
who sent him to the infirmary knew he had vomited, but
6 No. 11-2811
the guard sent him for medical attention and there is
no suggestion that he was responsible for the composi-
tion of the nutriloaf or had any reason to suspect its ill
effects until the plaintiff got sick. The nurses may have
realized that the plaintiff would suffer seriously if he
werent given a different diet, and maybe they should
have done something other than just treat his symptoms,
but they are not defendants. We dont know the
precise role that any of the four defendantsthe sheriff,
who runs the jail, the two inspectors, and the jail guard
(whether he was the guard who sent the plaintiff to the
infirmary or some other guard is another thing we
dont know)played in making the plaintiff sick. He
filed a grievance with the jail, although after his last
sojourn there, when he was back in state prison
with its adequate diet. The grievance states that the
defendant inspectors had authorized the nutriloaf for
the prisoners in the part of the jail in which the
plaintiff was housed and that theyd done this pursuant
to policy established by the defendant sheriff.
Complaints filed by unrepresented prisoners are sup-
posed to be construed liberally. E.g., McNeil v. United
States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam); Marshall v. Knight, 445
F.3d 965, 969 (7th Cir. 2006); Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d
162, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2010). There are intimations in the
record that jail officialswho may have included one
or more of the named defendantswere aware of the
plaintiffs plight, and it is apparent that nothing was
done to replace the nutriloaf diet that was sickening
him, though he was able somehow to obtain bread. The
No. 11-2811 7
record contains statements that he had tried to solve
this problem by speaking with a [correctional officer],
that after a second incident of vomiting he told officers
again, that he was taken to the clinical office to be
seen by a nurse (presumably guards took him there),
that other inmates were vomiting their nutriloaf meals
(which must have been observed by correctional officers),
and that he had written the sheriff informing him
about their vomiting. Adult vomiting other than
because of illness or drunkenness is rarehealthy, sober
adults do not vomit a meal just because it doesnt taste
goodand if the plaintiff is being truthful there was
a veritable epidemic of vomiting during his stay. A risk
can be so obvious that a jury may reasonably infer
actual knowledge on the part of the defendants. Hall v.
Bennett, 379 F.3d 462, 464 (7th Cir. 2004); see Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842-43 (1994). The defendants
have submitted no contrary evidence, once the inadmis-
sible affidavit from the assistant fire chief is ruled out. It
is a possible though certainly not an inevitable in-
ference from the record (and from the defendants contu-
macy) that jail officials were aware that the nutriloaf
being fed the prisoners when the plaintiff was there
was sickening him yet decided to do nothing about it.
That would be deliberate indifference to a serious health
problem and thus state an Eighth Amendment claim.
The dismissal of the suit was premature. Since the
plaintiff has departed from the county jail and the case
involves medical issues, we suggest that the district
court request a lawyer to assist him in litigating his
8 No. 11-2811
claim. The court should also consider imposing sanc-
tions on the defendants.
The plaintiffs other claim is that the defendant jail
guard offered him a sandwich (and not of nutriloaf, either)
if he would spy on other prisoners, and that he had
refused. Bribing prisoners in a nonfederal jail to inform
on other prisoners does not violate any federal law of
which were aware. The failure to give the plaintiff
the sandwich could not be thought cruel and unusual
punishment for his refusing to take the bribe, for it
made him no worse off than he would have been had
no bribe been offeredstuck with a nutriloaf diet. The
second claim adds nothing to the first, so we affirm
its rejection.
The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part,
and remanded. We order the defendants to show cause
within 14 days of the date of this order why they
should not be sanctioned for contumacious conduct in
this court. If they ignore this order to show cause like
the last one, they will find themselves in deep trouble.
3-27-12
Constitutional Law
For One Prisoner, Nutriloaf Diet May Violate Eighth Amendment, Posner Opinion
Says
Posted Mar 28, 2012 6:25 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit filed by a prisoner who claimed the nutriloaf he ate in the Milwaukee County
Jail was cruel and unusual punishment.
The opinion (PDF) by Judge Richard Posner of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals suggested appointment
of counsel for the inmate, Terrance Prude, who vomited and suffered an anal fissure after eating nutriloaf at the jail during a
stay to attend court proceedings. Jail officials gave Prude bread and water as a substitute, and his weight dropped from 168 to
154 after two stays at the facility. Other inmates at the jail also vomited after eating nutriloaf.
Withholding nutritious food or substituting sickening food, causing substantial weight loss, vomiting and maybe an anal fissure
would violate the Eighth Amendment, Posner said. He cited Wikipedia for the proposition that such a fissure is no fun at all.
The defendants, including Sheriff David Clarke Jr., did not disclose the nutriloaf recipe in response to discovery demands. No
evidence was presented concerning the recipe for or ingredients of the nutriloaf that was served at the county jail during the
plaintiffs sojourns there, Posner wrote. Nutriloaf isnt a proprietary food like Hostess Twinkies but, like meatloaf or beef
stew, a term for a composite food the recipe of which can vary from institution to institution, or even from day to day within an
institution; nutriloaf could meet requirements for calories and protein one day yet be poisonous the next if, for example, made
from leftovers that had spoiled.
Posner said the defendants ignored discovery demands and the trial judges order that they comply. The defendants also
failed to file an appellate brief and failed to respond to an order to show cause whey they didnt do so. They seem to think that
the federal courts have no jurisdiction over a county jail, Posner said. The appeals court issued an order to show cause why
the defendants should not be sanctioned for contumacious conduct and warned they will find themselves in deep trouble if
they fail to comply.
The case is Prude v. Clarke. Hat tip to How Appealing.
Copyright 2012 American Bar Association. All rights reserved.
For One Prisoner, Nutriloaf Diet May Violate Eighth Amendment, Posner ... http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/for_one_prisoner_nutriloaf_die...
1 of 1 3/31/2012 6:30 PM
4
A variety of torture instruments including,
at right, the iron maiden of Nuremberg.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Torture is the act of inflicting severe pain (whether physical or
psychological) as a means of punishment, revenge, forcing
information or a confession, or simply as an act of cruelty.
Throughout history, torture has taken on a wide variety of forms,
and has often been used as a method of political re-education,
interrogation, punishment, and coercion. In addition to state-
sponsored torture, individuals or groups may be motivated to inflict
torture on others for similar reasons to those of a state; however, the
motive for torture can also be for the sadistic gratification of the
torturer.
Torture is prohibited under international law and the domestic laws
of most countries in the 21st century. It is considered to be a
violation of human rights, and is declared to be unacceptable by
Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva
Convention officially agree not to torture prisoners in armed
conflicts. Torture is also prohibited by the United Nations
Convention Against Torture, which has been ratified by 147
countries.
[1]
National and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a consensus that torture and similar
ill-treatment are immoral, as well as impractical.
[2]
Despite these international conventions, organizations that
monitor abuses of human rights (e.g. Amnesty International, the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture
Victims) report widespread use condoned by states in many regions of the world.
[3]
Amnesty International
estimates that at least 81 world governments currently practice torture, some of them openly.
[4]
1 Definitions
2 History
2.1 Antiquity
2.2 Middle Ages
2.3 Early modern period
2.4 Recent times
2.5 Historical methods of execution and capital punishment
2.6 Etymology
3 Religious prohibitions
3.1 Roman Catholic Church
4 Laws against torture
4.1 United Nations Convention Against Torture
4.1.1 Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture
4.2 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
4.3 Geneva Conventions
Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture
1 of 30 4/5/2012 2:25 PM
5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Torture, whether physical or psychological or both, depends on complicated interpersonal relationships between
those who torture, those tortured, bystanders and others. Torture also involves deeply personal processes in
those tortured, in those who torture and in others. These interacting psychological relationships, processes and
dynamics form the basis for the psychology of torture.
1 The torture process to the torturer
1.1 Motivation to torture
2 See also
3 References
4 Further reading
5 External links
Motivation to torture
Research over the past 50 years, starting with the Milgram experiment, suggests that under the right
circumstances and with the appropriate encouragement and setting, most people can be encouraged to actively
torture others.
[1]
John Conroy:
When torture takes place, people believe they are on the high moral ground, that the nation is under
threat and they are the front line protecting the nation, and people will be grateful for what they are
doing.
[2]
Confidence in the efficacy of torture is based upon the behaviorist theory of human behavior.
[3]
Stages of torture mentality include:
Reluctant or peripheral participation
Official encouragement: As the Stanford prison experiment and Milgram experiment show, many people
will follow the direction of an authority figure (such as a superior officer) in an official setting (especially
if presented as mandatory), even if they have personal uncertainty. The main motivations for this appear
to be fear of loss of status or respect, and the desire to be seen as a "good citizen" or "good subordinate".
Peer encouragement: to accept torture as necessary, acceptable or deserved, or to comply from a wish to
not reject peer group beliefs.
Dehumanization: seeing victims as objects of curiosity and experimentation, where pain becomes just
another test to see how it affects the victim.
Disinhibition: socio-cultural and situational pressures may cause torturers to undergo a lessening of moral
inhibitions and as a result act in ways not normally countenanced by law, custom and conscience.
Psychology of torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_torture
1 of 2 4/4/2012 8:45 PM
6
Techniques discussed in School of the
Americas training manuals, 1987-1991:
[12][5][1]
Motivation by fear
Payment of bounties for enemy dead
False imprisonment
Use of truth serum
Torture
Execution
Extortion
Kidnapping and arresting a targets
family members
After this 1992 investigation, the Department of Defense discontinued the use of the manuals, directed their
recovery to the extent practicable, and destroyed the copies in the field. U.S. Southern Command advised
governments in Latin America that the manuals contained passages that did not represent U.S. government
policy, and pursued recovery of the manuals from the governments and some individual students.
[10]
Notably,
David Addington and Dick Cheney retained personal copies of the training manuals.
[11]
Soon after The army created FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation manual. This was used by the U.S. Army until
2007.
The first manual, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation,"
dated July 1963, is the source of much of the material in the
second manual. KUBARK was a U.S. Central Intelligence
Agency cryptonym for the CIA itself.
[13]
The cryptonym
KUBARK appears in the title of a 1963 CIA document KUBARK
Counterintelligence Interrogation which describes interrogation
techniques, including, among other things, "coercive
counterintelligence interrogation of resistant sources". This is the
oldest manual, and promotes the use of abusive techniques, as
exemplified by two references to the use of electric shock.
[13]
The second manual, "Human Resource Exploitation Training
Manual - 1983," was used in at least seven U.S. training courses
conducted in Latin American countries, including Honduras,
between 1982 and 1987. According to a declassified 1989 report
prepared for the Senate intelligence committee, the 1983 manual
was developed from notes of a CIA interrogation course in Honduras.
[4]
Both manuals deal exclusively with interrogation.
[14][15]
Both manuals have an entire chapter devoted to
"coercive techniques." These manuals recommend arresting suspects early in the morning by surprise,
blindfolding them, and stripping them naked. Suspects should be held incommunicado and should be deprived of
any kind of normal routine in eating and sleeping. Interrogation rooms should be windowless, soundproof, dark
and without toilets.
The manuals advise that torture techniques can backfire and that the threat of pain is often more effective than
pain itself. The manuals describe coercive techniques to be used "to induce psychological regression in the
subject by bringing a superior outside force to bear on his will to resist." These techniques include prolonged
constraint, prolonged exertion, extremes of heat, cold, or moisture, deprivation of food or sleep, disrupting
routines, solitary confinement, threats of pain, deprivation of sensory stimuli, hypnosis, and use of drugs or
placebos.
[5][16]
Between 1984 and 1985, after congressional committees began questioning training techniques being used by
the CIA in Latin America, the 1983 manual went through substantial revision. In 1985 a page advising against
using coercive techniques was inserted at the front of Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual.
Handwritten changes were also introduced haphazardly into the text. For example, "While we do not stress the
use of coercive techniques, we do want to make you aware of them and the proper way to use them," has been
altered to, "While we deplore the use of coercive techniques, we do want to make you aware of them so that
you may avoid them." (p. A-2) But the entire chapter on coercive techniques is still provided with some items
U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KUBARK
2 of 6 4/4/2012 8:51 PM
7
Detail by Entity Name
Florida Profit Corporation
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.
Filing Information
Document Number P00000075354
FEI/EIN Number 593672653
Date Filed 08/04/2000
State FL
Status ACTIVE
Principal Address
501 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, STE. 790
TAMPA FL 33602 US
Changed 07/07/2011
Mailing Address
501 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, STE. 790
TAMPA FL 33602 US
Changed 07/07/2011
Registered Agent Name & Address
BARKER, CHRIS A
501 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD
SUITE 790
TAMPA FL 33602 US
Address Changed: 01/06/2012
Officer/Director Detail
Name & Address
Title P
BARKER, CHRIS A
501 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, SUITE 790
TAMPA FL 33602 US
Title VP
RODEMS, RYAN C
501 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, SUITE 790
TAMPA FL 33602 US
Title ST
Previous on List Next on List Return To List
No Events No Name History
www.sunbiz.org - Department of State http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_num...
1 of 2 4/5/2012 4:16 PM
8
Previous on List Next on List Return To List
No Events No Name History
COOK, WILLIAM J
501 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, SUITE 790
TAMPA FL 33602 US
Annual Reports
Report Year Filed Date
2010 01/06/2010
2011 03/02/2011
2012 01/06/2012
Document Images
01/06/2012 -- ANNUAL REPORT
06/30/2011 -- ADDRESS CHANGE
03/02/2011 -- ANNUAL REPORT
01/06/2010 -- ANNUAL REPORT
03/27/2009 -- ANNUAL REPORT
01/14/2008 -- ANNUAL REPORT
02/09/2007 -- ANNUAL REPORT
04/10/2006 -- ANNUAL REPORT
01/03/2005 -- ANNUAL REPORT
01/28/2004 -- ANNUAL REPORT
03/07/2003 -- ANNUAL REPORT
01/10/2002 -- ANNUAL REPORT
04/23/2001 -- ANNUAL REPORT
08/04/2000 -- Domestic Profit
Note: This is not official record. See documents if question or conflict.
| Home | Cont act us | Document Searches | E- Filing Services | Forms | Help |
Copyright and Privacy Policies
St at e of Florida, Depart ment of St at e
www.sunbiz.org - Department of State http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_num...
2 of 2 4/5/2012 4:16 PM